JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner, K. S. Game, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the promotion of the respondents 2 to 20 to the post of Assistant Director of Industries and subsequent promotions on the ground that his claim was not considered by the State Government. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to consider his case and accord him due promotions. ( 2. ) THE petitioner was appointed as a trainee Block Level Extention officer by the then State of Madhya Pradesh on 21-8-1956 and was subsequently appointed as an Extension Officer in the pre-unified scale of Rs. 150-10-250. Some time after the re-organisation of States, the Development Blocks were abolished and the officers attached to the Blocks were absorbed in various departments. It appears that the petitioner and some others attached to the blocks were absorbed in the Commerce and Industries Department. ( 3. ) PURSUANT to the provisions of section 115 of the States Re-organisation act, a final Gradation List of Commerce and Industries Department was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary dated 22-10-62 (Annexure B to the petition ). In Category III of the non-gazetted officers of Glass iii certain posts from different regions of the State were equated and a common gradation List was prepared on the basis of the said equation. The posts equated were : mahakoshal region : Loan Inspector, Block Level Extension Officer, Regional Inspector Handlooms. Madhya Bharat region : Inspector, Industries and Commerce Inspector Survey, Inspector Commercial Accounts Investigator Handicrafts Block Level Extension Officer. Vindhya Pradesh region : Block Level Extension Officer District Industries Inspector. Bhopal : Village Industries Extention Officer. In the Gradation List the petitioner was put at Serial No. 36 in order of seniority, while a number of respondents from Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh regions were placed below him. The plea of the petitioner is that though Inspectors, Industries and Commerce from the Madhya Bharat region and other categories from other regions, referred to above, enjoyed a slightly better scale of pay, the effect of the equation was that after 22-10-1965 the various categories of officers of different regions mentioned above were brought under one cadre and their seniority was also fixed on the basis that they belonged to one cadre for the purposes of absorption, confirmation, fixation of scales of pay and promotion. ( 4. ) THE petitioner says that in spite of this legal position on 8th October 1965 the State Government published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette a Notification dated 28-5-1965 (Annexure C) containing the Rules for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Industries which directed that "persons working on the following Class II and Class III posts in the Directorate, with the minimum period of officiation on these posts given below, will be considered for promotion as Assistant Director of Industries. The effect of the Notification is that though the Field Officers, Inspectors and the Block Level Extension Officers are brought in one cadre as a result of the decision of the Central Government in that matter, the Field Officers and the inspectors are given advantage over the Block Level Extension Officers inasmuch they become qualified for promotion with a qualifying service of seven years only, while the Block Level Extension Officers become eligible after 12 years, and thus the Block Level Extension Officers are discriminated against. The other effect of the Notification was to disturb the seniority accorded to the block Level Extension Officers by the Central Government by enabling the promotion of the Field Officers and the Inspectors with a shorter period of service. ( 5. ) THE abovesaid Notification was published a few days before the final integration List was published, though much after the Provisional Gradation list was published. Subsequently, in supersession of the above Rules fresh rules were published on 9th February 1968 (Annexure D to the petition) in which the same pattern was followed as would be seen from the annexure attached to the said Rules. The petitioner says that a number of officers who were junior to him as per the Integration List were promoted as Assistant directors of Industries, as under the abovesaid Rules only seven years officiation on the original posts held by them was held to be sufficient, while in the case of the petitioner and others, who were Block Level Extension Officers, 12 years officiation was required, and thus though the petitioner was senior and belonged to the same cadre, after integration of services, his name was not considered at all and his juniors were promoted. The petitioner contends that the Rules contained in Annexure C and D to the petition, so far as they prescribe different periods of minimum service for the Field Officers and the Inspectors on the one hand, and Block Level Extention Officers on the other, are ultra vires the powers of the State Government, as they set at naught the integration effected by the Central Government and indirectly perpetuate the old cadre of different regions. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the Annexures C and D to the petition. ( 6. ) IT appears that before the integration of services was effected by the central Government, the State Government had granted a revised unified scale of pay for the posts of Block Level Extension Officers by order dated 16th January 1962 (Annexure E to the petition ). The petitioner says that after integration that scale of pay cannot be allowed to continue and that order must also be quashed inasmuch as after the integration for the equated categories it is necessary for the State Government to prescribe a uniform scale of pay. ( 7. ) IN the Return filed on behalf of the State, it was admitted that the rules were framed and that there was also integration, as alleged by the petitioner. It was, however, asserted that the pay scale on which the petitioner was appointed was lower to that of the Inspectors and that the rules as to eligibility for promotions were made keeping in view the various categories of persons equated who were performing different kinds of duties, with different qualifications and responsibilities". It was stated that the State Government was entitled to frame the Rules keeping in view the eligibility and suitability of persons for promotions notwithstanding the fact that the different posts were brought under the same category and were equated". It was, therefore, urged that the Rules were not discriminatory and were not liable to be struck down. From the Return it is clear that the petitioner was not considered for promotion, as he had not satisfied the test of 12 years officiation on the post held by him. ( 8. It was, therefore, urged that the Rules were not discriminatory and were not liable to be struck down. From the Return it is clear that the petitioner was not considered for promotion, as he had not satisfied the test of 12 years officiation on the post held by him. ( 8. ) THE only question that arises for our consideration, therefore, is as to whether after the various posts from different regions were equated by the central Government in exercise of its powers under section 115 of the States re-organisation Act, they could be differently treated and their different identities maintained for the purposes of promotion even after integration. In our opinion, this cannot be done. The proposition that in the case of persons recruited from different: sources in a particular cadre no discrimination can be made for future promotions is now well settled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Roshan Lal v. Union of India ( AIR 1967 SC 1889 ). In that case, their Lordships struck down the part of the notification which gave favourable treatment to direct recruits in regard to promotion as against promotees on the ground that the notification was violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Their lordships observed : "in our opinion, the constitutional objection taken by the petitioner to this part of the notification is well founded and must be accepted as correct. At the time when the petitioner and the direct recruits were appointed to Grade d, there was one class in grade d formed of direct recruits and the promotees from the grade of artisans. At the time when the petitioner and the direct recruits were appointed to Grade d, there was one class in grade d formed of direct recruits and the promotees from the grade of artisans. The recruits from both the sources to Grade d were integrated into one class and no discrimination could thereafter be made in favour of recruits from one source as against the recruits from the other source in the matter of promotion to Grade c. To put it differently, once the direct recruits and promotees arc absorbed in one cadre, they form one class and they cannot be discriminated for the purpose of future promotion to the higher grade c. " (p. 1893)In our opinion, the result of integration of services under section 115 of the states Re-organisation Act is the same Officers belonging to different categories and coming from different integrated parts of the new State, when they were equated under one category, their original differences disappeared and after integration they belonged to one category only, namely, the category fixed by the Central Government. The State Government gets no right to put at naught the integration made by the Centra! Government even for promotion to higher grades on the basis that originally the officers belonged to different categories and exercised different powers or enjoyed different scales of pay. ( 9. ) THE question as to what is the effect of integration came for consideration before the Mysore High Court in another form in M. Soans v. State (AIR 1969 Mys 348 ). Physical instructors in the State of Hyderabad and four other regions were allocated to the new State of Mysore and they became physical instructors in the new state, and all those posts were treated as equivalent posts in respect of which a common seniority list was prepared. On revision of pay scale of physical instructors, the physical instructors allocated from other four areas were allotted a lower pay scale than that of the allocated physical instructors from the State of Hyderabad. On revision of pay scale of physical instructors, the physical instructors allocated from other four areas were allotted a lower pay scale than that of the allocated physical instructors from the State of Hyderabad. When this fixation of pay scale was challenged before the mysore High Court, their Lordships observed : "when there was a concourse of services from the different States in the new State of mysore, any revision in the pay scale with respect to a cadre, after there was such concourse, could not be revised only for one sector of that cadre and not made available to another. It is true that the post of a physic of instructor in the erstwhile Slate of Hyderabad carried a higher pay scale than the pay scale which was applicable to the post of a physical instructor in the State of Madras to which the petitioner belonged. That that is so was an excellent ground for the continuance of the higher pay scale in the case of the Hyderabad allottees or for the continuance of the lower pay scale in the case of the allottees from the State of Madras. But once the allottees from the five different regions became physical instructors in the new State of Mysore and their posts were recognised as equivalent posts there could be no justification for prescribing a higher pay scale in respect of the allottees who arrived from one State or a lower pay sc. de for the allottees from another. That discrimination is not possible even on the ground that the pay scale with which the allottees arrived from one State was lower than the pay scale of certain others who arrived from another. " In this view of the matter, it was held that once there was the assignment of a higher pay scale to the physical instructors who came from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, the benefit of that higher pay scale could not be refused in the case of the other physical instructors who belonged to the same cadre whatever may be the region from which they were allotted. The same reasoning applies in the case of the officers holding different posts but equated under Category III by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under section 115 of the States Re-organisation Act. The same reasoning applies in the case of the officers holding different posts but equated under Category III by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under section 115 of the States Re-organisation Act. After the date of the integration, the original differences in their status or pay scale disappears and they are to be treated thenceforth as belonging to one class and one cadre ; and in the matter of promotion no distinction can be made between them on the basis of previous differences in their status or pay scale. ( 10. ) BEFORE the integration was completed the State Government could have treated them as belonging to different classes, and in this view the Notification dated 28-5-1965 (Annexure C), which was issued before the Final integration List was published, could have been supported. But the revised notification dated 9-2-1968 (Annexure D) cannot be supported, as it was issued admittedly after the integration Even the Notification dated 28-5-1965 (Annexure C) was rendered invalid after the final Integration List was published. The position that now emerges is that if any promotions were made by the state Government on the basis of the Rules framed under the Notification dated 28-5-1965 (Annexure C) between 28-5-1965 to 22-10-1965, those promotions could not be open to any challenge, but all other promotions of the Field officers and the Inspectors after that date, effected without considering the claims of the Block Level Extension Officers, are rendered invalid. ( 11. ) IT was strenuously urged on behalf of the State that the petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches. From the documents on record it appears that she petitioner was making representations to the State Government and his appeal was also pending before it for a considerable period. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that mere delay in the filing of the petition is not sufficient to deprive the petitioner of the relief which he is entitled to get. ( 12. ) WE are, therefore, of the opinion that the part of the Notifications (Annexures C and D to the petition), which prescribe different minimum periods of officiation on the post held by the Field Officers and the Inspectors on the one hand, and the Block Level Extension Officers on the other, must be quashed. ( 12. ) WE are, therefore, of the opinion that the part of the Notifications (Annexures C and D to the petition), which prescribe different minimum periods of officiation on the post held by the Field Officers and the Inspectors on the one hand, and the Block Level Extension Officers on the other, must be quashed. We, however, do not find it necessary to quash the promotions of the respondents 2 to 20 in view of the fact that we are issuing a direction to the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the basis that on the date of the issuance of the Notifications (Annexures C and D to the petition)the requirement of 12 years olficiation on the post held by him was not necessary and that in his case also seven years officiation would have been sufficient. The State Government shall also be required to consider the case of the petitioner for future promotions if he is selected as an Assistant Director of industries on the basis of seniority-cum- merit. In case the petitioner is fixed on any particular post, the State Government shall revert the person last promoted. ( 13. ) THE petition is, therefore, allowed. The part of the Notifications (Annexures C and D to the petition), which prescribe different minimum periods of officiation on the posts held by the Field Officers, Inspector and block Level Extension Officers, is quashed, and a mandamus is issued to the state Government to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of seniority-cum-merit for promotion as if 12 years minimum period of officiation on the post held by him was not required to qualify him for promotion as also for further promotions. As to the officers other than the Block Level Extension officers, it is not brought to our notice that they have been granted any better pay scale as compared to the one granted to the Block Level Extension Officers, we, therefore, do not find any reason to quash Annexure E to the petition. We are, however, confident that the State Government shall take note of our decision and shall remove anomaly, if any. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. The security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.